Observation: your insults and personal attacks are unprofessional, as are Tim's.

Question: since you claim the SoLux bulbs are out of spec, what is the accuracy of your setup and, if you happen to know it, of the other people's setups you refer to? Can't claim a spec isn't met if you don't know the accuracy of the measuring equipment.

Observation: your insults and personal attacks are unprofessional, as are Tim's.

No personal insults or attacks, both of us don't agree with you and further, you have no means to back up your side of the argument! So to you, that's an insult?

Quote

Question: since you claim the SoLux bulbs are out of spec, what is the accuracy of your setup and, if you happen to know it, of the other people's setups you refer to? Can't claim a spec isn't met if you don't know the accuracy of the measuring equipment.

Here we go, you have to digress and take us farther down a rabbit hole than backup your own data. So here's the deal Franz, three of us, with three different Spectrophotometer's and differing software are all providing very close data points. Robin's $13,000 spectroradiometer correlated very well with his $1500 i1Pro. So just looking at his data, he did exactly what I suggested you NEVER did when you supposedly measured your displays and took at face value the dE report the software provided. He used a reference grade instrument which I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts he has certified by Photo Research on a regular basis. My i1Pro-2 is less than a year old, it has a self calibration process using a white tile so if something where off, it should pop an error. Same with the PR and older i1Pro Spectrophotometer.

But let's present your question back to you: what is the accuracy of your 10 year old Minolta Color Meter you are sure produced a value that got within 50 values of Solux? What instrument and accuracy did Solux use? You must know or how could you accept their data and further tell three of us, our data is either wrong or we did the measurements worng? I don't expect an answer, I expect more questions to move us into another area to dismiss your poor methodology.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander! Who else besides you have data the correlates with your findings? You've asked in three different forums and you're not hearing the answer you want, so we're either wrong or insulting.

That's what I mean by insults and personal attacks (and your previous posts on other forums are chockful of them). Asking what the accuracy is of your measurements is not digression or going down a rabbit hole. It's pretty basic; unless you have the answer, you simply don't know if the SoLux bulbs meet specs or not.

So what about my "piss poor" Minolta color temperature meter? I looked it up and now realize that it has a spec for repeatability, but not for accuracy. Repeatability is specced as 2 mireds, which translates into +/- 44K for the 4700K measurements I did 10 years ago. My apologies for assuming that the number of +/- about 50K that I had in my head was for accuracy, it clearly is not. So, I can't claim my measurements then were within any accuracy, just repeatability.

I don't know what SoLux uses, but I've asked them. And, I would have never claimed their products don't meet specs and publish that data without talking to them first. But that's just me.

That's what I mean by insults and personal attacks (and your previous posts on other forums are chockful of them). Asking what the accuracy is of your measurements is not digression or going down a rabbit hole. It's pretty basic; unless you have the answer, you simply don't know if the SoLux bulbs meet specs or not.

I answered that and further illustrated that multiple devices corrected rather well. The data provided dismisses your measurements and puts Solux's into question as well. You choose to side with sloppy methodology and a process by Solux you clearly don't know anything about*!

Quote

So what about my "piss poor" Minolta color temperature meter? I looked it up and now realize that it has a spec for repeatability, but not for accuracy.

Ah, so you're putting the same faith into a written spec from Minolta as you do with Solux and that makes it all correct in your mind?

Quote

So, I can't claim my measurements then were within any accuracy, just repeatability.

Again, you're putting the same faith into a written spec about repeatability from Minolta as you do with Solux?

Quote

*I don't know what SoLux uses, but I've asked them. And, I would have never claimed their products don't meet specs and publish that data without talking to them first. But that's just me.

Yet our data is due to incorrect measurements (your exact words): Next, measuring SoLux CCT numbers. There are a lot of wrong ways to measure them and I'm pretty sure the two gentlemen you refer to are doing it wrong.

In actually, you have no idea if they did it wrong did you? Admit it, it's clear.

The more you write, the more easily we can dismiss your POV! Stop while you're way behind here (and at PhotoNet). You have a belief system that's not based on science. You've accepted data you can't check yourself. You've dismissed the work of people who do have the proper equipment and understanding which is pretty shocking! Maybe you can find someone with a old Minolta Color Meter on DP Review who will produce the same meaningless numbers you got and you'll feel better. IF that's insult or an attack, it's based on your inability to accept the scientific method and accept a concept solely on faith. Further you wrote:

Quote

Calibrators have a certain accuracy and when you know that you know what the possible errors in the CCT measurements are. I don't have this information at my fingertips, but for the sake of argument let's say it's +/- 5%. That would translate into +/- 250K for a 5000K calibration. That's not "all over the place" in my book. But since I don't know right now, I'll find out and report back.

You clearly didn't find out nor report back. You made up a very convenient fudge factor to make a point. Very telling! Move on Franz. Your arms are a tad too short to box with dog <g> (grin to impress upon you not to take the licking too personally).

Just told you that the Minolta didn't have an accuracy spec, so the measurements I took were meaningless. Told you I mistook repeatability for accuracy. The least you could do is gracefully accepting my apology instead of rambling on.

You very well know why I didn't report back on the issue of monitor color temp measurement accuracy, but I'll say it anyway for everybody here to see it: your increasingly hostile attitude, insults and personal attacks on the photo.net forum, which you are now doing here as well.

Back to the issue of accuracy of measuring CCT of SoLux bulbs. The question of how accurate your and the others' measurements are remains unanswered and, I'll repeat it, without that you cant' know whether or not the bulbs are within spec. I again suggest you work directly with SoLux for a resolution.

I've asked SoLux about their measurements and will report on what I learn.

Just told you that the Minolta didn't have an accuracy spec, so the measurements I took were meaningless.

I told you that a week ago on PhotoNet.

Quote

The least you could do is gracefully accepting my apology instead of rambling on.

When you apologize to Tim and Robin, I'll follow back. Set the example!

Quote

You very well know why I didn't report back on the issue of monitor color temp measurement accuracy, but I'll say it anyway for everybody here to see it: your increasingly hostile attitude, insults and personal attacks on the photo.net forum, which you are now doing here as well.

We've been over this. You don't like being corrected and I spent like 36 posts alone on the original PhotoNet site trying to first help you understand your errors, then go down repeated digressions you yourself designed. Further, how is my so called increasingly hostile attitude, insults and personal attacks stop you from backing up your arguments? Doesn't. Sounds like another excuse.

Quote

Back to the issue of accuracy of measuring CCT of SoLux bulbs. The question of how accurate your and the others' measurements are remains unanswered and, I'll repeat it, without that you cant' know whether or not the bulbs are within spec. I again suggest you work directly with SoLux for a resolution.

And I'll repeat there's no reason to work with Solux, the burden of proof is on their end. At one point it was on your end but you've got no means to do so while often dismissing the work of people who can.

Quote

I've asked SoLux about their measurements and will report on what I learn.

And so if they tell you everything is fine, you'll accept or reject that based on what science? You of all people should know the old saying: Trust but verify!

The same fellow is quoted as say: "Reports that say something hasn't happened are interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don't know we don't know." In your case, based on your writings here and on PhotoNet, I believe you fall into that last camp, you don't know what you don't know. But you sure are tenacious when questioned! Sorry about expecting you to hold up to the peer review.

Quote

Yes, that's me. Is that an issue for you?

No issue, it simply provides transparency about you and gives me further data points on how your mind works.

I'm also somewhat surprised you didn't introduce your new LuLa friends to your new article hosted on the Solux site*, the reason you started all this on PhotoNet. Is that an issue for you?

I apologize to you, Robin and Tim for saying your measurements must have been wrong, based solely on Intertek ETL Semko's test report http://www.solux.net/ies_files/IntertekLetter.pdf , SoLux's assurances that their bulbs meet specs and, as it appears now, my erroneous measurements.

However, I can't agree with your statement "And I'll repeat there's no reason to work with Solux, the burden of proof is on their end." Tell us, do you or do you not know the accuracy of your measurements? If you do, then tell us what it is and how the bulbs do or do not meet specs. If you don't, it seems to me, the burden of proof is on you.

I don't want to pick nits, particularly political ones, but trust but verify is from a different person than the one you then quoted next. And once you find out how my mind works, could you please enlighten me as well?

Worse, far worse is this is all due to your article, hosted on the Solux site that states we should all be using Solux 5000K bulbs and calibrate our displays to 5000K, after which we'll get a match. Anyone else here on LuLa find that approach doesn't work?

Well, it could work...but it's only one approach...the other approach is to use D65 for the display and the viewing environment. I re-lamped my GTI box with D65 lamps. I use the digital dimmer (has a tiny impact on white balance but not much) to match up the luminance of the display and the lightbox. I get a darn close match when soft proofing. Yes, the ISO spec form proofing calls for D50/5000ºK and yes, that can work. But I've found driving a display down to D50 is less accurate because most displays native white point is close to D65. Depending on your display that can cause banding in the display unless your display has 10bit DACs for internal calibration.

I like the guys at Solux...got to know Phil pretty well because of the Epson Print Academy...but the circumstances surrounding a technical specification needs to be fully explained. Without Solux disclosing EXACTLY how they are making measurements and what tools/software they are using, the specs can't be independently confirmed.

BTW, haven't bothered to read the PhotoNet threads, but I will say that Andrew has exhibited unusual restraints in this thread. Perhaps my skin is a bit thicker than most folks, but I think the OP needs to chill out.

However, I can't agree with your statement "And I'll repeat there's no reason to work with Solux, the burden of proof is on their end."

It's up to them to verify what they promise. And further to tell us if they don't agree with our findings, where we slipped up (as I tried to do with you and the Minolta). Further, I don't care if a CCT 4700K Solux measures CCT 4500K or 5100K. I told you why (the numbers don't help us anyway, CCT is a range of colors).

The entire reason we got sucked into this issue is due to your article that has a premise:1. Use Solux 5000K bulbs because they produce 5000K and that's close(est) to daylight. That's not so even IF they measured CCT 5000K. 2. Calibrate your display (no matter the backlight technology) to 5000K. I tried to illustrate that for a visual match, you may need a different value. Again, the numbers don't matter. The correct value to calibrate a display is whatever number produces a match! YMMV. You didn't like that concept despite one of the earliest posts from a user saying doing as you suggested produced a worse result than what he was doing previous to reading your article.

So there are the major disagreements I have. From there, we (I) was sucked into this Solux number rabbit hole, how their numbers (and yours) were correct. I think you're seeing your numbers were probably not correct, mostly due to the incorrect equipment used.

I then found two people who reported on the ColorSync list that: 1. The numbers they measured didn't match what Solux reports. 2. They used different instruments designed to measure spectral color and those measurements were pretty close to agreement. Certainly closer together than what Solux and you reported. But lets' forget what you reported, it's not data we can depend on and use.

You with me so far?

I used a third and differing device but one that reads ambient light and provides spectral data. It's using a newer protocol called XRGA. We can go there but in a nutshell, it is an attempt to better match data from differing devices from differing manufacturers. It is newer than what Robin and Tim were using in 2009. Yet now, for the 3rd time, my data, Tim's data and Robin's data are while not exactly the same (and that's not to be expected), fairly close but far from what Solux reports.

I told you how one can and should gauge accuracy. NOT by reading the spec sheets. I could report what X-rite says both the i1Pro and i1Pro-2 are in terms of actual measurement accuracy. I will not do that because I don't blindly accept these kinds of metrics and neither should you. But Robin used a VERY expensive and VERY precise lab grade spectroradiometer from Photo Research (http://www.photoresearch.com/current/pr655.asp). That's going to be our reference grade instrument to compare the other, far less expensive and far less precise (in terms of specification) devices. It correlated extremely well with a device made by another company that cost a faction of it's cost.

So we have three different parties with four different spectroradiometer devices, all pretty close and all way off from what Solux is reporting. I would kill for a PR-655 but to be honest, even if I had an extra $13K sitting around, I don't need anything like this.

I told you about the analogy of using your foot to measure a room. You assume it's exactly 12 inches. We take a $1 ruler and find out it's 11.3 inches. Your measurements will be incorrect not accurate but by how much and how much accuracy do we need? Now we take a $30 ruler that's supposed to be far more accurate and it states your foot isn't 11.3 but rather 11.298. We then take a measuring device that measures distance from NASA that cost $75,000 and it reports your foot is really 11.198877. If you need to measure that room to buy carpeting, any of the measuring devices expect your foot will do the job. We're not plotting how many mm the earth is to the moon at this moment! One could say, that $1 ruler isn't accurate. And compared to the NASA device, that would be correct.

The PR-665 is far more accurate than the i1Pro. But the i1Pro is fine for the task of measuring the Solux. We are not arguing if the one Solux bulb is 5000.1K or 5000.38590K, or even 4998K. The three of us are using measuring devices that show far, far more than 50K you originally said was 'good enough' to what Solux promises. No one would see the difference.

Quote

Tell us, do you or do you not know the accuracy of your measurements?

I know my measurements and those of the others are within the values that put into question the values Solux says they should be. I do not have a PR-665 or a higher grade unit. I have a lower grade unit (a ColorMunki). I suspect the two will produce results that are well within your 50K fudge factor by a large degree.

The best tests done were those done by Robin that you quickly dismissed because he did use a reference grade lab device to see if it and the lower grade, less expensive, prosumer device correlated and as you saw, (with the 4700K bulb) 127K between the two! Tim's data using the i1Pro was in worst case, 152K from Robin's and in best case, 59K! My one measurement is a difference of 55K and I'm using a different device (i1Pro vs. i1Pro-2). YET in just my example, the differences are 451K from Solux. Now I don't care if Solux CCT 4700K bulbs are 500K from what they state but you sure do. I don't know if the 4700K bulb I buy next year to replace one that burned out will be closer or father off, we haven't even gone into their process control. We haven't take a dozen or more of the same bulb, new out of the box to see how they might match or not match.

So do I think my device and measurements are 'accurate'? Not NASA accurate by far. But far closer than the idea of using that 11.3 inch foot as a 12 inch yardstick if you will. Three independent people produced data that's pretty close. Very close if you factor in just the differences in two identical X-rite devices, the age of the bulbs, how close or far from the illuminate we measured, other factors. I suspect we could correlate our three data sets far closer than they are but this is all a bit 'quick and clean' but again, far, far closer than what Solux reports.

Could all three devices be equally wrong, broken, misused? Or perhaps, the burden of proof is now on Solux, the three independent parties are 'close enough'?

Absolutely it could but it's not an absolute! That's what I was hoping Franz understood. Then we moved into this silly number game and what Solux claims and he blindly accepts.

Quote

I re-lamped my GTI box with D65 lamps.

Franz will now rip you one for using any kind of Fluorescent bulb. We've been down that path on PhotoNet. That perhaps thousands of print and pre-press shops use them, and people like you and I have to deal with that reality isn't going to wash for Franz.

I don't recommend to use Solux 5000K bulbs because they are closest to daylight. If you want to match the color temp of the monitor and lighting, like I do, then you want to select a CCT that is high enough to be acceptable to as many people as possible; even a 5000K monitor is too reddish for some people, but that's the upper limit for SoLux bulbs.

Your main point is that three people measure results that are tightly grouped, but way different from SoLux, ergo, SoLux must be wrong. You apparently don't know how accurate your or the others' equipment is, but you still conclude that SoLux must be wrong. Tight grouping is no substitute for accuracy. As it stands, you cannot claim that SoLux is wrong. And instead of arguing how you are right, in spite of having no accuracy information for your measurements, you could have worked with SoLux, read the test report I referred to, and gotten way more mileage out of our efforts.

Your main point is that three people measure results that are tightly grouped, but way different from SoLux, ergo, SoLux must be wrong.

I NEVER wrote that anywhere here or on the PhotoNet site. You sir were the one who said we were wrong. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Then you crawl in the last post with your tail between your legs with an apology to Robin and Tim and admit as I've suggested from day one, your mythology is shoddy at best! So now you're going to resort to lying and making up shit? Find WHERE I said "Solux is wrong". Nowhere. I said several of us have data which correlates well and doesn't match what Solux is specifying.

Are you so desperate you have to now put words in my mouth? You think the ergo lets you off the hook? You are so hopeless you have once again taken us down the deepest rabbit hole by implying I'm saying the Solux data is wrong and I never said that.

Quote

You apparently don't know how accurate your or the others' equipment is, but you still conclude that SoLux must be wrong.

What didn't you understand, as a so called former electrical engineer that I wrote about the devices and methodology three independent people found that correlate and produce vastly differing values than Solux? English is your 2nd language but man, can't you read posts a few times and attempt to understand what is being said to you? I told you I can provide accuracy data sheets, just like the one's you believe as facts from Solux, for every device we used. Would that make the data correlation three of us found then make you accept that data? I think not.

My efforts have never been about proving Solux wrong because for the 5th or sixth time, I don't care what they say their bulbs are rated at. My efforts from day one was to prove YOU wrong and I've done that so many times, it's funny! You continue to try to wear me down with your digressions, now you've come to the point you have to flat out lie?

How about this: why don't you, as a retired engineer with presumably time on your hands, buy a PR-655, even a i1Pro and test the lights yourself? Then you can present your finding to us and Solux? Why is the burden of proof not acceptable with three of us, one an actual color scientist, yet you, who used some piss poor device and incorrectly, not up to the same standards? You are a piece of work.

Franz has conveniently ignored a very interesting article I was given prior to release to the CIE. He said he'd get back to us after I arranged a copy for him well over a week ago. It pretty much puts a huge disqualification on this flat earth theories that all displays should be calibrated to "5000K". Here's what I wrote on Photonet:

Quote

I just read a fascinating article by Abhijit Sarkar's recent submission to CIE regarding his work on Standard Observer. I don't think it's out for public consumption yet but in the piece, there's mention of an experiment where users were asked to match via a display using differing back light an image they are viewing in a booth. Two displays were both calibrated using the same product to 5200K. Both displays had quite different SPDs as one used CCFL, the other LED and the spectrum of the two are vastly different. They saw colors on one display being much warmer than the other, the results of the differences of the match they made was between 3 and 13dE (76), the average for all users was a dE of 8! Mostly in the aStar. All viewers were checked for color blindness and scored high in the FM100 hue test.

As I said, like many of the educational material I tried to get Franz to examine, when it puts holes in this ideas, he either dismisses it, ignores it or tells us it's wrong. That's what got us into this silly argument about Solux values in the first place. It worked (to a degree) to sidetrack Franz from answering a piece, about to be published by the CIE, that pokes lots of big fat holes in his paper!

Anyone else want to read Franz's article and comment? It will make for a wild ride towards any topic that doesn't center on this article, the crumb trail is for all to see on PhotoNet but don't go there without copious aspirin!

Franz, you get past page 2? That's all you need to read to see your ideas about color management need a lot of peer review!

You just said: "So now you're going to resort to lying and making up shit? Find WHERE I said "Solux is wrong". Nowhere. I said several of us have data which correlates well and doesn't match what Solux is specifying." and "by implying I'm saying the Solux data is wrong and I never said that.": So here is what you said in the first post on this thread: "This CCT4700K lamp, inserted within a Solux lamp housing by their design fails as it's off by CCT 451K."

"I told you I can provide accuracy data sheets, just like the one's you believe as facts from Solux, for every device we used. Would that make the data correlation three of us found then make you accept that data?": OK, bring 'em on and explain how your and the others' measurements show that SoLux is wrong, oops, that SoLux fails. "I think not.": Show me SoLux fails in your measurements and then show that your measurements are valid; I have no problem with that whatsoever as I want to resolve this issue and the chips will fall where they may.

Although English is indeed my second language (or is it fourth after Dutch, French and German?), it looks to me like your use of the English language is getting more and more unprofessional, some would even say rude.

You just said: "So now you're going to resort to lying and making up shit? Find WHERE I said "Solux is wrong". Nowhere. I said several of us have data which correlates well and doesn't match what Solux is specifying." and "by implying I'm saying the Solux data is wrong and I never said that.": So here is what you said in the first post on this thread: "This CCT4700K lamp, inserted within a Solux lamp housing by their design fails as it's off by CCT 451K."

I'm not implying anything. I'm providing you facts which you don't like, I'm providing you measured data from three sources. More of your semantic designed digressions.

Quote

OK, bring 'em on and explain how your and the others' measurements show that SoLux is wrong, oops, that SoLux fails. "I think not.": Show me SoLux fails in your measurements and then show that your measurements are valid; I have no problem with that whatsoever as I want to resolve this issue and the chips will fall where they may.

Here's the data for the three devices. HOW in any way will that change the data we provided? Answer: it will not. Yet the 2nd digression you demand I go through in two posts in the last few hours to keep you from answer the questions presented to you (again, how's that CIE article coming)?

Where's YOUR data, or Solux's data their measurements are correct? Oh I forget, you don't have the means to provide data. Oh I forget, you did provide data which was meaningless. Where's the spec for accuracy of the device you used? Oh that's right, there IS NONE. It doesn't provide spectral data. Only took you a week to get that into your head.

Although English is indeed my second language (or is it fourth after Dutch, French and German?), it looks to me like your use of the English language is getting more and more unprofessional, some would even say rude.

Yes, I'm rude and unprofessional. You've said that several times, I totally agree. In no way does that let you off the hook for your misunderstanding of colorimetry. It doesn't let you off the hook for using poor methodology. It doesn't let you off the hook in ignoring the CIE article that pokes holes in your concepts of display calibration. It doesn’t let you off the hook for saying our data is wrong.

What's the next rabbit hole you want to take us down as an attempt to ignore the mistakes you've made in print?

...it looks to me like your use of the English language is getting more and more unprofessional, some would even say rude.

You need to learn American (clue, it ain't English). Andrew has not yet gotten "rude" with you (and I have a passing familiarity with "rude"). When he gets "rude", I'll let you know...really, so far Andrew has been if not pleasant, at least civil.